User agent detail

LG-C320/V100 Obigo/Q7.3 MMS/LG-MMS-V1.0/1.2 MediaPlayer/LGPlayer/1.0 Java/ASVM/1.1 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1
GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeParse timeActions
Source result (test suite)
ua-parser/uap-core
vendor/thadafinser/uap-core/tests/test_device.yaml
LGC320 Detail
Providers
BrowscapPhp
6012
Teleca-Obigo 7.0 JAVA Mobile Phoneyes0.024 Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
LG-C320 V100closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose0.001 Detail
NeutrinoApiCom
Obigo closeJVM LGLG/C320/v1.0mobile-browseryescloseclose0.189 Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.2
Obigo Q7 LGC320smartphoneyes0.007 Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
No result found
UAParser
v3.4.5
Obigo 7.3close LGC320closeclosecloseclose0.003 Detail
UserAgentStringCom
close closeclosecloseclosecloseyesJavaCrawler0.066 Detail
WhatIsMyBrowserCom
Obigo Q7 Browser Q7 LGLGC320closeclosecloseclosecloseclose0.424 Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.10
Obigo Q 7.3 LGC320mobile:featureyescloseclose0.022 Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
No result found
Wurfl
1.6.4
Teleca Obigo Q7.3close LGLG/C320/v1.0Feature Phoneyescloseclose0.024 Detail

About this comparison

The primary goal of this project is simple
I wanted to know which user agent parser is the most accurate in each part - device detection, bot detection and so on...

The secondary goal is to provide a source for all user agent parsers to improve their detection based on this results.

You can also improve this further, by suggesting ideas at ThaDafinser/UserAgentParserComparison

The comparison is based on the abstraction by ThaDafinser/UserAgentParser
Comparison created 2016-02-13 13:31:39 | by ThaDafinser